It's Time to Reclassify UK Law Firms
Here is a new rule: a law firm's home jurisdiction is where it has the most lawyers.
September 07, 2022 at 12:01 AM
4 minute read
CommentaryThe original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
Ask any industry commentator to distinguish between the top commercial law firms, and expect a lengthy pause as the monotone logos, ampersands and corporate-typefaces revolve in their mind.
All major firms proclaim to provide bespoke, world-class legal services, will charge handsome fees for doing so, and can talk a good game when asked about the things that can't be monetized, like diversity.
But this isn't helpful to clients when making choices and it arguably does a disservice to the industry as a whole given firms are trying so hard to make themselves stand out.
Thankfully, there was always one distinction to fall back on: geography. In simpler times, we had U.K. firms, U.S. firms, German and so on.
But now, even that classification is fast losing meaning. It all made sense when firms drew the bulk of their revenue from one region, with an obvious single headquarters and a culture that emanated from that single point. But few firms neatly fit this model anymore.
Which of its offices can be said to run Baker McKenzie, for example? It originated in the U.S. but its global chair, Milton Cheng, is based in Hong Kong, its largest office is London and its largest region for revenue is Europe, including the U.K.
Various others—often vereins—have become sprawling masses with a seemingly random mix of regions making up the largest operation, leadership nationality, home of management and most important location for revenue. Think Dentons, Norton Rose Fulbright and Herbert Smith Freehills. For dozens of firms it has become difficult to settle on a geographical descriptor.
Easy, say the firms, just call us 'international.' The problem with that is that almost every large law firm is international to some extent—even the ones that are famous for their single-site strategies.
In compiling various rankings of law firms for decades now, Law.com International has decided to draw a line for its long-running U.K. ranking: a firm's geographical home is the country in which it has the most lawyers.
This will have a significant effect on this year's U.K. Top 50 ranking. Gone will be many transatlantic firms including DLA Piper, Hogan Lovells, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, Gowling WLG and Womble Bond Dickinson—all of which have more lawyers on the other side of the Atlantic to the U.K. Most of these firms already feature in the Am Law 100 anyway.
Also gone will be the venerable British name that is Ashurst—the original home of Mr. Slaughter and Mr. May no less, but a firm which now has more lawyers in Australia. And Taylor Wessing, which has more lawyers in Germany.
Losing those names may feel strange to some, but the alternatives are worse. Assessing U.K. revenues alone, for example, would mean many clearly U.S.-based firms such as Latham & Watkins and Kirkland & Ellis would be large enough to feature on a 'top U.K. firms' ranking.
The truth is that the most sensible way of ranking international law firms these days is to do a global ranking. That is why Law.com International's Global 200 table is so important.
There will still be more debates to be had of course. We increasingly keep an eye on exactly what institutions qualify to enter the legal rankings and what revenue can be included. For the time being it makes sense to define a law firm as an institution that derives the bulk of its revenue from the provision of legal advice to third parties. But the convergence of legal services and other professional services could cloud this picture in the future.
The best promise we can make is that we will keep on returning to the methodology to ensure it is fit for purpose. Because these issues are not going away.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBig Law Walks a Tightrope But Herbert Smith Freehills Refuses to Lose Its Footing
8 minute readLuxembourg Hot, Beijing Not: In Today’s Cutthroat Market, Regions Need a Business Case
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250